Breaking the Science Barrier

[Timothy]

Felix - glad to have you join us. Should be an interesting visit.

Timothy

[Don Hudson]

Felix, Timothy;

Yes indeed, take a few days' off and what happens?

God does not play dice with the universe. Perhaps it was not meant in the usual way we interpret it but it was said. How do we interpret Einstein's famous phrase?

When we examine scientists' and philosophers' writings we find many who are both deeply religious and deeply committed to their craft. The two apparent contradictions co-exist within one. Why is there no conflict? Rather than argue against organized religion, why not examine why this is so? Is it not the more important question? Let us leave fundamentalism and it's iterations at the door.

Atheism does not follow from science nor does it attend a scientific understanding of the universe, nor is science mutually exclusive of a religious life.

All through science and particularly philosophy, religion, philosophical and scientific thought intertwine, mix and are a background in otherwise "secular" writings, and while religion does not seem to "inform" enquiry, the writer(s) are practising Christians with a deep commitment yet able to embrace "post-modern" notions, (for example), with equanimity.

While the names won't be familiar, but Charles Taylor, a world-renowned Canadian philosopher was last year's winner of the Templeton Prize, named after Sir John Templeton who wrote:

What is the best way to live? How large is God? How are finite beings related to the infinite? What was God's purpose in creating the universe? How can we be helpful? These ageless questions can inspire people today just as they have inspired people throughout the ages, linking the human soul to philosophy and to the love of wisdom.

—Sir John Templeton

The site itself is interesting reading. The question asked at the beginning of the post has, for me, opened the dialog much more broadly. Instead of a "head-on" conversation, might there be parallel "interfacing" notions of meaning, both east and west, which "sing" to different arenas of reification than strict Enlightenment or rational approaches?

While the name won't mean anything to most (if any), take a look at John Caputo, pre-eminent U.S. philosopher deeply engaged in the work of current and recent "continental" thinkers in philosophy such as Jaques Derrida (d.2004). I don't mean to be obscure here - I mean to find/show examples of the above notions - that beyond "organized" religion of the base, fundamentalist kind there are serious, what may be termed "secular", work and projects going on.

There are other areas of "investigation" of this "intertwining" between secular work and theology which has been both going on and recognized in some areas as "problemmatic", for many decades and not just in recent philosophical work.

None of this negates the kind of work that Dawkins and others are doing even though such "intertwining" is almost absent. The key difference is, the question is (and always was, "open". Nor do these investigations stop at the raw notion of "belief".

The above mentioned author, Caputo, is contributing editor of a book called, "Transcendence and Beyond", in which the intertwining of the notions of philosophy, religion, science and the "postmodern project" (if there is such a thing!) are discussed at length, and again I don't intend to be obscure or anything other than communicating a hopefully-useful change that continues the dialogue in possibly helpful areas. "Agreement" and "the answer" are not the goals...

[conehead]

Don, you got it wrong. Charles Taylor was the first aircraft mechanic. Worked for the Wright brothers. Known as "the Father of Aircraft Maintenance".

[Don Hudson]

yes, but in his spare time...

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Don,

Although you removed your previous post, there's somthing in it, the foundation of it, which I'd like to address.

You mentionned how little you thought about how it all started. How you were "content" not to think about it. In fact, that's the opinion of many if not most people.

Here's what rubs me. And that was pretty much the point of my previous post: Why is it that when I make the case for a creator, I commit intellectual laziness, but when you chose not to think about it you're being scientific? Who's not thinking here?

I'm not necessarily describing your personal theology, Don, but that seems to be the gist of many posters in this thread so far.

A bit about myself: I'm a devout christian of the evangelical kind. Yup! You'd probably refer to me as a fundamentalist! You'd also probably find me very unreligious. You see, I don't do religion. I prefer faith. They're different! You're absolutely correct when you, and others, say that many wars and atrocities were caused by religions. But none of these can be justified by the message that is found in the christian Bible. I'm not saying all religions are bad, obviously, and Timothy was right in mentionning all the good things they did which were in line with the theology of the Bible. My point is that people of ill-wills used religion as an excuse to do things which they wanted. People did it! Not religion in and of itself.

I find myself in agreement with this new post of yours more than with the first one. I do believe faith, philosophy and science can co-exist. Quite nicely and profitably, I might add. All three are for me to explore deeper and deeper, one expanding on the other. I do believe science will one day understand the origin of life more completely. Will it find God or an accident there?... That's where you and I might chose to disagree. In the meantime, I too want to keep looking.

As an aside, you can find extremely good reviewed science in the Intelligent Design community and you'd be surprised at the level of work and review that goes on even in the creationist community. You might not agree with all of it, obviously, as I disagree with some, but of course not all, evolutionist science, but I believe you would enjoy the intellectual challenge. If you're up to it, let me know.

So what did Einstein want to say? I think he wanted to convey the magnificent complexity of the universe. I don't think he ever was much of a believer but a man of his intellect understood the improbability of a universe without a Creator! You asked!

Cheers Don! Nice chatting with ya!

Felix

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Timothy,

Glad to be on board. I like those conversations that can prod deeper into our philosophies and, yes, theologies. Especially when they can stay civil.

Felix

[Seeker]

But none of these can be justified by the message that is found in the christian Bible.

Yeah? Like this stuff?

The "Good Book"

[Don Hudson]

Say Again, Over;

To clarify, I don't view those who hold religious views as "intellectually lazy".

To further clarify, I did not say I only "thought a little" about my DNA statement before making it and during the subsequent research - I don't toss stuff off here to see if people like the flavour and change if they don't. I take these dialogs seriously and do a lot of work prior to posting. I'm not interested in being right, I'm interested in the dialogue. Strong, vociferous argument and challenging is not a signal of the desire to be right and "win", (a notion that is meaningless in this conversation)- because all views are "on the table, out there, with nothing held back as an 'ace' or like telling a friend what you honestly think because they're a friend", it is intellectually, deeply respectful of those who hold differing views.

Schroedinger's "What is Life" is as good a reference as any to begin a conversation regarding the origin of DNA and I read it for an accessible discussion but in the end decided that Lynn Margulis/Symbiotic Theory was as good a place to work in - What I did acknowledge is that I do not have the training in the specialized sciences to adequately describe what is today known about RNA and DNA. We know that RNA is at least 3.5 billion years old and that RNA was likely how DNA evolved.

A literal way to interpret the bible's timings and historical record is one way to enter the dialogue on how life began. You can help me here - the way I understand an evangelical fundamentalist approach to belief in the origin of life is the creationist view that the world is 10,000 years old and life was made in 6000 years, man was made in his "perfect" form from Day One. I need to understand if this is the way to interpret all evangelical views or are there large differences within an evangelical tradition?

I don't "believe" in evolution, I keep the question open in favour of intellectual curiosity and try not to "conclude" anything. It is the nature of the universe that it is not static and so the notion of "concluding" that something is as we think it is, is basically faulty.

The question of god and science is unresolved because science cannot prove infinite negative cases and religion cannot demonstrate the existence of god such that there is no doubt. There are religious philosophers writing today about these very notions, (see below).

All this said, there are people deeply immersed in science doing good and interesting work on this all the while intertwined with very strong religious beliefs about the universe. The work of James P. Mackey is an example of such interesting philosophical work by those who have taken degrees in religion and who teach at schools of divinity. In Transcendance and Beyond he discusses in an article entitled, Transcendant Immanence and Evolutionary Creation, the notions of "creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of nothing", and the "Enlightenment/Rational" (analytic) notions as having their groundings in "the senses", (Aquinas). Anyway, I don't wish to be bogged down by quoting highly academic texts but wish instead to point to discussions which do indeed "suspend the question".

I think that is an interesting basis to continue a parallel walk...

[Guest rattler]

God saw she wasn't going to get it done, so on the 6th day she created engineers.

[DEFCON]

Mitch

"Defcon.... I've gotta tell you your credibility is wanting with me... I'm still learning, but since our last discussion I've been watching as many lectures as I can on quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and string theory, and so far, I haven't found even what could have confused you into saying that according to string theory your keyboard, or any other object, doesn't exist. "reference string theory and get back to me" remember that?"

I’m not confused my friend; perhaps that shortcoming lays elsewhere?

If you wish, you might give Dr. B. Greene's "Elegant Universe" a go. I believe it can be found on You-tube.

Here are the questions that once answered, will I hope, provide you with an appreciation of my point regarding the "keyboard"; what are "Strings" thought to be made of and what do Strings go on to form?

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Don,

Thanks for your quick reply. I don't think I can answer as quickly though as I have to manage my time wisely with work and the kids and the little lady.

I appreciate your answer and I hope I didn't make it sounds as if I was accusing you of anything. I, myself, like to think and reflect on things and like to surround myself with people who like it too. If there was a challenge in my post, I trust you saw it as a friendly offer to do just that and assure you it wasn't a score-keeping thing.

To answer your question:

You'll find most evangelical church goers opting for at least a version of Intelligent Design, especially here in Canada. There are certainly some who believe in a litteral Creation and also many shades of in-betweeners.

There are obviously a lot of people who believe everything they're told. Heck, so long as The Weekly World News stays in business we know that's true! What might surprise many however is the amount of actual science that goes into both ideologies (I.D. and Creation).

The folks who subscribe to I.D. do research as well. They marvel at how life has developed and they look at it with God as a part of their paradigm. As we discussed, whether God was or wasn't involved can't be practically proven in a purely scientific sense. Therefore, dismissing one side or the other is not based on the validity of either side but simply consitutes the framework on which the science is built. Obviously, the science from both paradigms will seek different things and will go about it differently but they certainly are compatible.

The ones who subscribe to Creation do so from a paradigm that the Creation account of the Bible is a literal description of actual events. Of course, it appears absolutely absurd until you look into it a bit. They explore science the same way evolutionists do, but from a different starting point. When they see the fossil record, they will explain it through Noah's flood. One cosmologist developed a theory of how the universe could have originated as a white hole a few thousand years ago and how it would explain the old stars that can be seen in the night sky. They do not claim that their science is perfect or that it will even survive the test of time. But they surmise that it could have happened that way based on what they know, which includes a literal account of Creation. Essentially the same way an evolutionist postulates about evolution.

Then, of course, there are those in many churches who simply believe God was there in the beginning to make sure everything was going to be O.K. then it all happened over the course of 4.5B years.

From my end, I see design when I look at life. I also have no real problems with God taking a week to make it all. Heck! Why did He take so long? Obviously, some questions about what we observe then have to be answered!

It is indeed an interesting conversation. I've never read Mackey but will endeavour to do so. Thomas Aquinas makes for interesting reading to be sure but it'll make your head spin at times.

See ya tomorrow!

Felix

[Say Again, Over!]

Seeker,

I couldn't decide if you were asking an honest question or just seeking to discredit, so initially I was going to ignore your post...

But hey! Let's see if we can discuss it mano a mano.

The Bible is indeed full of violence, incest, rape, torture etc. Most of which you have to understand God condemns. In fact, all violence that originated from men is condemned in the Bible and that's an important distinction to make.

When God annihilated people or ordered their destruction, you have to see it from his perspective: He is the Creator. The people have turned from him. They are now doing this or that nasty thing and, seeing no repentance, he cleans house.

You might not think you agree with it but haven't you ever asked yourself: "If there is a God, why are so many evil things happening in the world?" The only way God would eliminate evil deeds would be by eliminating evil doers physically. We're all free agents. We chose how we act and God won't change your character against your will. If God had chosen to answer people's prayers when Hitler was doing his thing, He would have just destroyed him. He wouldn't have made him a nice guy. Do you know anybody who have been mad at God if an asteroid had fallen on the Eagle's Nest?

The people God eliminated in the Old Testament were guilty of a bunch of things. They were sacrificing children and other humans among other things. That context is explained in the paragraphs before and after the events brought up on the site you linked to.

So you can do like these guys who "read" the "evil book" and read only the bits of the Bible you want, to make it fit what you want to believe. Or you can explore the whole thing in context and get a truer sense of it.

Respectfully,

Felix

[DEFCON]

Hi Don

I enjoyed your explanation. I only have a couple minutes here, but will attempt to expand the boundaries of the discussion a little bit.

Rather than debate the chicken versus the egg theory, I would prefer to focus on the nature of consciousness.

Is the individual cell, a vein in your arm, or for that matter, a tree, “self-aware”?

Science is moving forward in that regard in that a few complex organisms are now being considered accordingly.

Here’s an example; in Africa there’s a tree upon which, elephants dine. These particular trees have an interesting defense strategy. When the elephants approach from downwind, the trees will become aware of their impending presence and immediately produce a noxious substance from their roots that renders the leaves inedible. The elephants know this & respond in turn by making their stalk from the upwind direction. When they get to the closest tree and munch a few leaves, the tree goes into action producing the substance and somehow, all the other trees get the message and follow suit. From my pov, this state of affairs is strongly supportive of the notion; at least this species of tree is “self-aware”?

There’s a considerable amount of published material on the subject of self-awareness available, but none that provides the definitive word. As with “time”, we remain unable to produce a definition that adequately defines the relative “concept”.

RNA & DNA are mysterious pieces of protein to be certain, but only representative of the physical world. Is the state of self-consciousness and or self-awareness programmed in the “code” or is it the result of a “force” that remains beyond our present scope of understanding?

Here’s a question; If there’s no where to go following the death of your physical body, do you, or could you exist at all in the present reality?

[Timothy]

Felix, I'm sure that you and I will have some differences in the manner in which we interpret the Bible. However, I strongly support your statement:

"Or you can explore the whole thing in context and get a truer sense of it."

Unfortunately many are unwilling to do this.

Cheers,

Timothy

[Seeker]

Seeker,

I couldn't decide if you were asking an honest question or just seeking to discredit, so initially I was going to ignore your post...

But hey! Let's see if we can discuss it mano a mano.

The Bible is indeed full of violence, incest, rape, torture etc. Most of which you have to understand God condemns. In fact, all violence that originated from men is condemned in the Bible and that's an important distinction to make.

When God annihilated people or ordered their destruction, you have to see it from his perspective: He is the Creator. The people have turned from him. They are now doing this or that nasty thing and, seeing no repentance, he cleans house.

You might not think you agree with it but haven't you ever asked yourself: "If there is a God, why are so many evil things happening in the world?" The only way God would eliminate evil deeds would be by eliminating evil doers physically. We're all free agents. We chose how we act and God won't change your character against your will. If God had chosen to answer people's prayers when Hitler was doing his thing, He would have just destroyed him. He wouldn't have made him a nice guy. Do you know anybody who have been mad at God if an asteroid had fallen on the Eagle's Nest?

The people God eliminated in the Old Testament were guilty of a bunch of things. They were sacrificing children and other humans among other things. That context is explained in the paragraphs before and after the events brought up on the site you linked to.

So you can do like these guys who "read" the "evil book" and read only the bits of the Bible you want, to make it fit what you want to believe. Or you can explore the whole thing in context and get a truer sense of it.

Respectfully,

Felix

Felix;

I sure didn't expect you to reply to my post but I'm glad you did. You seem quite sincere in your beliefs and I think you're probably a nice person but I'm shaking my head at some of what you have posted.

Intelligent design isn't science because science doesn't start with the answer and work backwards to prove it. How can someone believe in the science that makes everyday life possible but not believe in the science of geology or the science of paleontology?

Are you actually claiming that in all of the instances in the bible where God orders the murder, enslavement or rape of some person (or an entire group) it is because of something they did? You're saying that they were just getting a proper punishment for turning away from God? This is the same God that, through Jesus, advocated turning the other cheek right? The same God that upholds forgiveness as a virtue? Good for all of us but not for him.

Tell me why you believe that God is incapable of just changing someone for the better and must resort to having them burned on an altar, or why it's better for him to "clean house" and decimate entire cities than it is for him to use his omnipotence and simply change the person. Your Hitler example is perfect; those millions of people in the camps were being punished for something they did? Did they turn from God? Maybe God was just giving Hitler many, many chances to finally do the right thing but unfortunately Hitler never did. I don't know, what exactly was God doing while all those people died?

Look, the way I see it, you're doing what all strongly religious believers do; you say that it's OK for you to cherry-pick the good bits from the bible to support your beliefs and yet it's not OK for me to point out the incredible cruelty and evil actions encouraged by God - some of it for ridiculous reasons like simply working on Sunday. You can't have it both ways. You need to balance every good deed in the bible against every scourge, plague or slaughter.

I just want to go back to this point; "we're all free agents and God won't change our character against our will." What? God creates us in his image but not really since we're free agents and can do whatever we want. Some of us he creates as perfect little christians and others he creates with doubts and uncertainty but he hopes that this second group will spontaneously change into the christian kind without any assistance from him. If they don't change he will just clean house.

Put me down as unconvinced,

Respectfully

seeker

[Mitch Cronin]

I’m not confused my friend; perhaps that shortcoming lays elsewhere?

Well, I'm glad to hear we're still friends, and I've already said I'm still learning, but I'm not confused either. ... that you'd call that a shortcoming, if I was, is a little disappointing....

Matter exists. Regardless of your beliefs or mine. Something like 4.6 percent of the universe consists of normal -atomic- matter - like you and I and this computer and this planet and the stars etc.... Cosmologists say so... String theory does not appear to me to challenge that. None of the string theorists that I've heard have challenged that.

Here are the questions that once answered, will I hope, provide you with an appreciation of my point regarding the "keyboard"; what are "Strings" thought to be made of and what do Strings go on to form?

And there is where I say you're engaging in some less-than-straight-with-me behaviour... If you think string theory really explains why this keyboard I'm typing on right now doesn't exist, then why won't you even attempt to explain it to me? So far, rather than offer an explanation, you've simply claimed to have superior knowledge and referred me elsewhere. The BSBB method won't work with me. To me that suggests that maybe you can't explain... which in turn suggests there may not be any superior knowledge there after all?

Follow my logic?

Theoretical physics is hardly the brand of science that best shows the difference between science and faith. (which is how we got to this discussion) It's a good one to pick though if you want to argue they're similar in any way, because theories that can't be disproved are what faith is all about, yes? But the science that describes the visible matter we're aware of, such as that which makes up this keyboard, is beyond theory and requires no faith... It's all demonstrable. I drop the keyboard on my knee my knee feels the hit, and my eyes and ears confirm it.

It's that kind of science - which describes matter and the relationships of matter within our universe, and is testable and repeatable... Paleontology, archeology, biology, geology, botany, chemistry, etc. .... These are the kinds of sciences that require no faith whatsoever... and can describe evolution.

In any case, if matter doesn't exist, those folks who built that Large Hadron Collider sure are going to be disappointed.

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Seeker,

Sorry if it took a while to answer. I've been dealing with kids with backfiring stomachs and all that fun stuff.

You said:

Intelligent design isn't science because science doesn't start with the answer and work backwards to prove it.

And yet, when scientists discovered a living coelacanth which should have been "extinct" for 400 million years, did they abandon evolution? Of course not! They had their answer, evolution, and made it fit. That's scientific. You postulate, you make hypothesis and you see if it works.

With regards to why God punished this or that people in this or that way, I think if you do read the Old Testament and then the New you'll get the fuller context of it. If you read both and are decent at grammar, which you appear to be, then you'll understand what I was saying.

And finally, the great theological point of true freedom. Are we puppets that blong to God or are we free to chose one way or the other? This discussion is probably not one for an aviation forum but since we're here... The God I believe in created you and me free. Free to worship Him or not. Free to steal or keep our hands in our pockets. Free to hate or love one another. It's not that He can't make you or anybody a better person but rather that He won't. That would only make us toys in this world and certainly not a loving "creation". If God made us love Him, would it be love?

I hope I'm not sounding dismissive but this is the kind of stuff thick books are made of and I wouldn't do it justice here in 20 minutes.

Hope you'll join Timothy, Don and myself for coffee sometime!

Felix

P.S. I think you're probably a nice person too...

[Say Again, Over!]

Mitch,

For what it's worth: I think your keyboard is real too!

Felix

[Say Again, Over!]

Hi Timothy,

You're too right. We would probably have lively discussions. Can you imagine a catholic and a protestant having coffee? I can!

Looking forward to that day!

Felix

[Don Hudson]

Say Again Over;

With regards to why God punished this or that people in this or that way, I think if you do read the Old Testament and then the New you'll get the fuller context of it. If you read both and are decent at grammar, which you appear to be, then you'll understand what I was saying.

Hm, just a second... , you're saying because it's in the Old Testament and because that good book supplies context which is "evidence", that Creationism and it's political wing, ID, is somehow scientific, or did I misinterpret here?

The qualification, "and are decent at grammar" doesn't automatically mean that meaning is conveyed "accurately". Please allow me to wander a bit, (actually this is right on the centerline, but won't feel like it!).

There is in philosophy and in understandings of language, what is called, "the interpretive gesture", or the gesture towards interpretation [of language].

Language itself, may has been called, "the house of being" in the sense that "the interpretive gesture" urges toward one or another meaning - language is "always on the move" in the sense that we can't expect to "pin meaning down in language" and say "that's it!, that is exactly it!"- not in this kind of discussion.

In the daily vernacular where buying a car, visiting relatives, wishing someone "Happy Holidays", (speaking of "interpretive gestures"!), or asking for the Before Landing Check, this "gesture" isn't readily apparent because the world reality in such language is richly shared and "understood". In fact, such notions appear not only irrelevant to everyday life but also silly and perhaps dangerous if one spends to much time pondering the meaning of, "put the landing gear down...Now!"...

However, when we are discussing such topics as origins, the meaning of life, (which in itself is a questionable quest as interpreted by some!), then language becomes problemmatic. In fact, meaning itself is "always on the move" and the expectation that if we only are specific enough, if we only dig deeply enough, if we only just help the other person "get it", then we will "answer the question".

That is what I mean by always "keeping the question open" - it is always and forever, open, not by opinion, not by edict, not by this philsophical or religious tradition or that, but partly by the nature of language and the reality we sense/perceive and partly by the notion of and the nature of questioning itself. "Question" implies "Answer", but that is not the way the universe is. We may peel away layers and layers of possibility without ever getting the the "core" answer from which we may say, "Aha! - now I get it!"

"Getting it" isn't possible because language is always on the move. It was Plato who first broached the notion of the "Ideal", which language and our philosophies attempted to "uncover" - that is a powerful notion which religion borrowed from long before the birth of Christ and it has shaped our thinking down to today. Also, it is comforting to many to believe that there is an underlying reality which, if we just had the tools, we could "discover" and "get it" and know the true answers to "meaning in the universe".

Language is the "house of being" in the sense that it delineates our reality in the interpretive gesture. It does not "describe" so much as it "ascribes".

Science isn't "the universe uncovered". Science may be seen as one interpretive gesture with a more specialized language than everyday language but it is still very much "of us". The arguments which move towards an "objective" assessment of reality remain within the human construct. Whether such reality is "given" by god or "just is", is probably not a question which science or religion is capable of answering.

On "freedom and determinism", yes I agree that we are "free" but I'm not sure what that means because the next word is missing... Free "from", free "to"...

Will I ever play Bach with no mistakes? I am certainly free to... Might I fly? I can try but I am not free to defy gravity. Am I the sum of and am I limited by my genetic makeup? The proof is in the Bach Fugue I play with some mistakes. I'm still slugging through Dan Dennett's book, "Freedom Evolves".

In 1999, a long time ago in science, Paul Davies wrote a book called, "The 5th Miracle; the Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life" and I just found my copy. It discusses RNA as the "smart" molecule but is far more tentative about "origins" than we are today. In fact, my serious mistake in this discussion was claiming that science could delineate the origins of life and while it is much closer to connecting millions of dots on the way, we do not know how life began. However, Davies does mention primordial soups and the tendency of molecules to "make" life spontaneously. Given what we know about evolutionary science, it is not a difficult leap to comprehend molecular replication - it is the "first molecule" that interests and mystifies.

The Old and New Testaments are, if I interpret religious statements correctly, "the Word of God" as recorded by men as early as say, four thousand years ago. But the language then, especially cuneiform writing as opposed to using a technology known as "the alphabet", was notoriously inaccurate at such recording. The notions of metaphor and parable come to mind when interpreting such work and has driven the subject of biblical scholarship for centuries. We are left with versions of "The Word" - mine is the NIV.

One further comment apropos the original statement which began this post: As already acknowledged from my attempts as a kid to "fly", we are not free to interpret the phenomenon of gravity. It "is". What it means is irrelevant except to failed experiments which reify our sense of respect for such "laws", (as we label the phenomenon).

However, we are free to interpret the textual realities of our ancients. Some do this with less honesty and integrity than others, the purposes of which are always the same: To convince and persuade vice simply to keep the question open. The urgency to "just get at the nexus, the kernel of meaning so we "get it" is prevalent in all human activity but it is not necessary to enquiry and in fact can thwart good enquiry.

If all this is slightly confusing or if it feels entirely irrelevant itself, I think that is quite natural. Such positing actually gives rise to anger in some people and impatience in not a few with whom such an approach is discussed. That does not indicate it is "wrong" - it merely indicates that one is in an unfamiliar dialog the borders, the rules and the meanings of which are both unknown and "uninterpretable". I suggest however, that all dialogs are like this and we simply impose these artificial rules for expediency, security, false respect for the other, and a host of other very human responses to "the abyss".

Don

[Seeker]

Hi Seeker,

Sorry if it took a while to answer. I've been dealing with kids with backfiring stomachs and all that fun stuff.

You said:

And yet, when scientists discovered a living coelacanth which should have been "extinct" for 400 million years, did they abandon evolution? Of course not! They had their answer, evolution, and made it fit. That's scientific. You postulate, you make hypothesis and you see if it works.

With regards to why God punished this or that people in this or that way, I think if you do read the Old Testament and then the New you'll get the fuller context of it. If you read both and are decent at grammar, which you appear to be, then you'll understand what I was saying.

And finally, the great theological point of true freedom. Are we puppets that blong to God or are we free to chose one way or the other? This discussion is probably not one for an aviation forum but since we're here... The God I believe in created you and me free. Free to worship Him or not. Free to steal or keep our hands in our pockets. Free to hate or love one another. It's not that He can't make you or anybody a better person but rather that He won't. That would only make us toys in this world and certainly not a loving "creation". If God made us love Him, would it be love?

I hope I'm not sounding dismissive but this is the kind of stuff thick books are made of and I wouldn't do it justice here in 20 minutes.

Hope you'll join Timothy, Don and myself for coffee sometime!

Felix

P.S. I think you're probably a nice person too...

Felix;

I hope the kids are on the road to recovery (or, better yet, already recovered).

I have some acceptance for the term "God" when it is used by Deists to describe the the initial creation of the stuff that came before the Big Bang. Like in this quote by Thomas Paine:

"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

Here is something I poached from a website I visit that describes Deism in more detail:

Deism was a byproduct of the Enlightenment during the 17th and 18th centuries. It became a major belief system among European intellectuals, such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Rousseau, John Tillotson, John Toland, and Voltaire. It was imported into America and adopted by John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, George Washington and many -- perhaps most -- of the leaders of the American Revolution. Deists assert that:

- God exists: God created the universe, and its scientific and moral laws, in a state of perfection. Thus, after he set the universe in motion, his main task was completed. Since his creation was perfect, it did not need continual interference by God to keep it functioning as it was designed to operate.

- God is transcendent: He is separate from, and above, his creation.

- God is not immanent, except at the time of creation. Deists see no evidence of God currently working in nature. They believe that "Only an inept God would have to step in to fix a faulty world....The God of deism had made a world precisely as it as supposed to be, and it functioned very nicely without divine intervention."

- Miracles do not happen, either in biblical times or at the present.

- Prayer is not useful. Even if God were listening, he would not act.

Ontario Religious Tolerance

So, as I said, this is not my personal belief but I have some acceptance of those who do believe this.

I really don't get the God that you describe; is God omnipotent or isn't he, are we created in his image or not, is God all-knowing or what? If we're created in his image how can we be imperfect? If God already knows everything why does he need to set up little tests for me to see if I Love him? And even if I do Love him what does that mean since he created me, the world and the situation that I find myself in? Since God created me, the world and the guys who wrote the bible how can it be my fault if it's not enough to sway me into believing in God?

Sorry, too many contradictions.

[Timothy]

Good afternoon Felix.

I'm looking forward to meeting you and Don. We have nothing to "prove", just make a case for our own beliefs. A person's religion is a matter between themselves and the good lord. It's no place for arm-twisting.

I hope all is well with your young ones. I have six female cats going in for a spay on Wednesday. Should be a fun time for all. Fortunately this event is heavily subsidized by a very kind animal lover since the vet fees seem to be going through the roof these days.

[GDR]

Haven't been here that much lately and noticed this thread today. As science and Christianity are my two favourite subjects, (aside from 50's rock n roll), I find it hard to resist at least one post. (It seems to me that Don and myself have gone around this before. )

On evolution. Evolution is a theory. It is, as near as I who has no background in biology can tell, reasonably well grounded. Certainly micro-evolution can be demonstrated to be true as easily as can gravity. I do however have questions about macro-evolution. The argument from Dawkins and others is that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long period of time. The thing is that micro-evolution consists of changes that allow species to adapt to their situation, (survival of the fittest). It is a stretch to go from that to the evolution of an entirely different species. Still that isn't to say that it didn't happen that way, but until they can replicate or observe one species mutating into a new species it remains theory, no matter how well grounded it is.

How does the idea of evolution impact my Christian faith? Not at all. If God chose to create life through an evolutionary process then who am I to argue. Francis Collins, who headed up the “Human Genome Project”, (the group that successfully mapped out the entire human genome), calls DNA the “Language of God”. The Language of God

On abiogenesis. If we take it as a given that we have all evolved from creatures that consisted of a single cell we have to ask where that first cell came from. A single cell is incredibly complex with it's strands of DNA and everything else that goes into it. That first cell or cells came into being in one of two ways. Either it happened by a very fortunate set of natural circumstances or there was an external intelligence involved. Either position is a position of faith. We can't know in the empirical sense. Dawkins believes. that there is nothing other than the natural world as we perceive it, whereas as others like myself believe that there is more than just what we perceive from a purely scientific view. Both Dawkins and myself are people of faith.

I find it interesting that people can read a book written by a scientist such as Brian Greene, (“The Fabric of the Cosmos” is in my view the best book on this around for the layman), and find the idea of other dimensions quite acceptable while completely rejecting the idea of other dimensions from a theological view. We live in a four dimensional world. (3 spatial and 1 dimension of time) String theory talks of up to 11 dimensions including 2 time dimensions. What does another dimension of time look like? Why then, when theology suggests that God lives outside of our 4 dimensions is it so unreasonable? It seems to me that the idea that we live in our earthly dimension and that God lives in his heavenly dimension is a theory no more far fetched than string theory.

As far as the atrocities in the Bible are concerned I have this view. The Bible is a grand narrative. It is the story of mankind from creation to eventual re-creation. In that story is included the story of the creator, “God”, and His interaction with us. It is a mixture of mythology, history and guidance. Do I believe that God ordered the early Jews to massacre whole communities? No. Do I believe that they either wrongly believed that God had ordered them to do this, or that they justified their actions by claiming God had directed them in this act of genocide? Yes.

You have doing some interesting reading Mitch. Quantum Mechanics is absolutely fascinating. It looks like everything is made up of particles. But, what is a particle? String theory postulates that a particle is a vibrating dimensionless string of energy. Some scientists suggest that each particle is actually just a dimensionless bit of information. The astounding thing is that it looks like, as one scientist I read put it, “everything is nothing”. We have 5 senses. I wonder how we would perceive this world if we had more or different senses?

[Mitch Cronin]

You have doing some interesting reading Mitch.  Quantum Mechanics is absolutely fascinating. It looks like everything is made up of particles. But, what is a particle? String theory postulates that a particle is  a vibrating dimensionless string of energy. Some scientists suggest that each particle is actually just a dimensionless bit of information. The astounding thing is that it looks like, as one scientist I read put it, “everything is nothing”.

Do you suppose that's what Defcon was getting at? ...that's a little different than saying something doesn't exist though, isn't it?... obviously there's an acknowledgement of the existence of atomic matter ... and of the particles that make up atoms, by the notion of studying them in the first place... no?

I humbly suggest that particular bit of science is flawed. Clearly everything is not nothing. You can't study nothing... bit of a paradox isn't it? You can't accept a conclusion that you know cannot be the case, so you'd have to suspend any conclusion pending further analysis... and more data... ...No?

Someone took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. ...probably spent too much time getting lost in the math...

...or not?

None of what I'd so far come across has suggested everything is nothing (nor words to that effect)... I thought the general notion these days was M theory was the best existing theory and that we need to find "sparticles" and "gravitons" in colliders to prove it...

[Say Again, Over!]

Greg,

About origins: Thank you! I wish I could have said it like that. I recently had a great conversation with an atheist friend of mine at work the conclusion of which was that we were both men of faith! It surprised him a bit though.

Cheers,

Felix